The use of Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) has been gaining popularity in a great number of applications because of the flexibility and convenience in connectivity they provide. WPAN systems, such as those based on Class 2 Bluetooth® (BT) technology, generally replace cumbersome cabling and/or wiring used to connect peripheral devices and/or mobile terminals by providing short distance wireless links that allow connectivity within a 10-meter range. Though, for a limited number of applications, higher-powered Class 1 BT devices may operate within a 100-meter range. In contrast to WPAN systems, Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) provide connectivity to devices that are located within a slightly larger geographical area, such as the area covered by a building or a campus, for example. WLAN systems are based on IEEE 802.11 standard specifications, typically operate within a 100-meter range, and are generally utilized to supplement the communication capacity provided by traditional wired Local Area Networks (LANs) installed in the same geographic area as the WLAN system.
In some instances, WLAN systems may be operated in conjunction with WPAN systems to provide users with an enhanced overall functionality. For example, Bluetooth® technology may be utilized to connect a laptop computer or a handheld wireless terminal to a peripheral device, such as a keyboard, mouse, headphone, and/or printer, while the laptop computer or the handheld wireless terminal is also connected to a campus-wide WLAN network through an access point (AP) located within the building.
Both Bluetooth® and WLAN radio devices, such as those used in, for example, handheld wireless terminals, generally operate in the 2.4 GHz (2.4000-2.4835 GHz) Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) unlicensed band. Other radio devices, such as those used in cordless phones, may also operate in the ISM unlicensed band. While the ISM band provides a suitable low-cost solution for many of short-range wireless applications, it may also have some drawbacks when multiple users operate simultaneously. For example, because of the limited bandwidth, spectrum sharing may be necessary to accommodate multiple users. Multiple active users may also result in significant interference between operating devices. Moreover, in some instances, microwave ovens may also operate in this frequency spectrum and may produce significant interference or blocking signals that may affect Bluetooth® and/or WLAN transmissions.
When operating a Bluetooth® radio and a WLAN radio in, for example, a wireless device, at least two different types of interference effects may occur. First, when an interfering signal is present in a transmission medium along with the signal-of-interest, a low signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (SINR) may result. In this instance, for example, a Bluetooth® signal may interfere with a WLAN signal or a WLAN signal may interfere with a Bluetooth® signal. The second effect may occur when the Bluetooth® and WLAN radio devices are collocated, that is, when they are located in close proximity to each other so that there is a small radio frequency (RF) path loss between their corresponding radio front-end receivers. In this instance, the isolation between the Bluetooth® radio front-end and the WLAN radio front-end may be as low as 10 dB, for example. As a result, one radio may desensitize the front-end of the other radio upon transmission. Moreover, since Bluetooth® employs transmit power control, the collocated Bluetooth® radio may step up its power level when the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) on the Bluetooth® link is low, effectively compromising the front-end isolation between radio devices even further. Low noise amplifiers (LNAs) in the radio front-ends may not be preceded by a channel selection filter and may be easily saturated by the signals in the ISM band, such as those from collocated transmissions. The saturation may result in a reduction in sensitivity or desensitization of the receiver portion of a radio front-end, which may reduce the radio front-end's ability to detect and demodulate the desired signal.
Packet communication in WLAN systems requires acknowledgement from the receiver in order for the communication to proceed. When the isolation between collocated radio devices is low, collisions between WLAN communication and Bluetooth® communication, due to greater levels of mutual interference than if the isolation were high, may result in a slowdown of the WLAN communication, as the access point does not acknowledge packets. This condition may continue to spiral downwards until the access point drops the WLAN station. If, in order to avoid this condition, WLAN communication in collocated radio devices is given priority over all Bluetooth® communication, then isochronous Bluetooth® packet traffic, which does not have retransmission capabilities, may be starved of communication bandwidth. Moreover, this approach may also starve other Bluetooth® packet traffic of any communication access.
Different techniques have been developed to address the low isolation problem that occurs between collocated Bluetooth® and WLAN radio devices in coexistent operation. These techniques may take advantage of either frequency and/or time orthogonality mechanisms to reduce interference between collocated radio devices. Moreover, these techniques may result from so-called collaborative or non-collaborative mechanisms in Bluetooth® and WLAN radio devices, where collaboration refers to any direct communication between the protocols. For example, Bluetooth® technology utilizes Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) as a frequency division multiplexing (FDM) technique that minimizes channel interference. In AFH, the physical channel is characterized by a pseudo-random hopping, at a rate of 1600 hops-per-second, between 79 1MHz channels in the Bluetooth® piconet. AFH provides a non-collaborative mechanism that may be utilized by a Bluetooth® device to avoid frequencies occupied by a spread spectrum system such as a WLAN system. In some instances, the Bluetooth® radio may be adapted to modify its hopping pattern based on, for example, frequencies in the ISM spectrum that are not being occupied by other users.
Even when frequency division multiplexing techniques are applied, significant interference may still occur because a strong signal in a separate channel may still act as a blocking signal and may desensitize the radio front-end receiver, that is, increase the receiver's noise floor to the point that the received signal may not be clearly detected. For example, a collocated WLAN radio front-end transmitter generating a 15 dBm signal acts as a strong interferer or blocker to a collocated Bluetooth® radio device receiver when the isolation between radio devices is only 10 dB. Similarly, when a Bluetooth® radio device is transmitting and a WLAN radio device is receiving, particularly when the Bluetooth® radio front-end transmitter is operating as a 20 dBm Class 1 type, the WLAN radio device receiver may be desensitized by the Bluetooth® transmission as the isolation between radios is reduced.
Other techniques may be based on collaborative coexistence mechanisms, such as those described in the IEEE 802.15.2-2003 Recommended Practice for Information Technology—Part 15.2: Coexistence of Wireless Personal Area Networks with Other Wireless Devices Operating in the Unlicensed Frequency Bands. For example, these techniques may comprise Medium Access Control (MAC) layer mechanisms or Physical (PHY) layer mechanisms. The MAC layer techniques may comprise, for example, the Alternating Wireless Medium Access (AWMA) technique or the Packet Traffic Arbitration (PTA) technique. Both the AWMA and the PTA techniques provide a time division multiplexing (TDM) approach to the collocated radio device isolation problem. For example, the AWMA technique partitions a WLAN communication interval into two segments: one for the WLAN system and one for the WPAN system. Each wireless system is then restricted to transmissions in their allocated time segments. On the other hand, the PTA technique provides for each communication attempt by either a collocated WLAN radio device or a Bluetooth® radio device to be submitted for arbitration and approval. The PTA may then deny a communication request that would result in collision or interference. The PHY layer technique may comprise, for example, a programmable notch filter in the WLAN radio device receiver to filter out narrow-band WPAN or Bluetooth® interfering signals. These techniques may result in some transmission inefficiencies or in the need of additional hardware features in order to achieve better coexistent operation.
Other collaborative coexistence mechanisms may be based on proprietary technologies. For example, in some instances, firmware in the collocated WLAN radio device may be utilized to poll a status signal in the collocated Bluetooth® radio device to determine whether Bluetooth® communication is to occur. However, polling the Bluetooth® radio device may have to be performed on a fairly constant basis and may detract the WLAN radio device from its own WLAN communication operations. If a polling window is utilized instead, where the polling window may be as long as several hundred microseconds, the WLAN radio device has adequate time available to poll the BT radio device, which may indicate that BT communication is to occur. In other instances, the collocated WLAN and Bluetooth® radio devices may utilize an interrupt-driven arbitration approach. In this regard, considerable processing time may be necessary for handling the interrupt operation and to determine the appropriate communication schedule based on the priority and type of WLAN and Bluetooth® packets.
Further limitations and disadvantages of conventional and traditional approaches will become apparent to one of skill in the art, through comparison of such systems with some aspects of the present invention as set forth in the remainder of the present application with reference to the drawings.